Sideloading iOS Apps No Longer Possible on M1 Macs

[4jasontv]

The problem is you expect others you are conversing with to the contrary in this thread to be objective and see the alleged problem with their position, while you continue posting biased and very unrealistic positions that you believe affirm your position.

Why are you supportive of people who steal and lie? Are you a developer that engages in these practices?

 

[TobiWahn_Kenobi]

Why are you supportive of people who steal and lie? Are you a developer that engages in these practices?

I do agree that your opinions appear very aggressive and one-sided.
I am a developer too and your ideas are sometimes far from realistic. But on the other hand I do support some level of accountability.
I definitely would support developersupport enforced for 2 years after first release, open sourcing 10 years after the last update to the software or 5 years after the last availability (whatever is longer). Patents on software to be outlawed. Copyright limited to 20 years.
the topic at hand is more nuanced. I would push for forced availability unless a real Mac app is provided.
also i would force Apple to provide arm and Intel 32 bit compatibility layers as an optional download. I hate to have lost so many perfectly functioning apps due to this move. And they already habe the tech as can be seen in Rosetta 2

 

[notabadname]

This is really in the interest of the Developers and I think the only correct treatment. Otherwise, Apple would be potentially violating the intent of the developer, whom may desire to sell a non-iOS version of the software. It wouldn’t be fair of Apple to suddenly obsolete the need for different versions on differnent platforms. That should only be enabled / permitted by the developer. The developer has a path to permit - so let the software developer know you want that feature. But as others point out, Apple can’t ”give” or expanand licensed use of an App that the developer likely didn’t anticipate.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Why are you supportive of people who steal and lie? Are you a developer that engages in these practices?

Not every person is the same. I treat people as individuals. When one wrongs me, that doesn't mean everyone else should be held accountable.

Your stance is very lopsided. You speak ill of developers and OS bugs etc. and yet, you continue to engage in the very activity you continue to call out in this thread. Your post might have more substance if you were consistent in your position, in my opinion.

 

[firewood]

No. Of course not. I will push for legislation that regulates those developers into a career better suited for them. Starting with reducing software IP to 2 years max and holding developers personally accountable for the sale of software that doesn't function as expected.

No problem.

However if that were true, 90% of the software you use wouldn't exist (much of it the better apps). Why? Because close to zero software works as expected. Even those ivory tower professors teaching how to write provably correct software often find that their proof's don't function as expected. Just look at all the severe security exploits that every major company has been trying to fix over the past many years. Better developers are more aware of this than the ones unsuited for the career. No small developer could afford the liability insurance, as only 2 years profit wouldn't come close to paying for it, much less the developers rent, and you'd end up with no software, except maybe the free open source stuff on GitHub, written by college students with nothing to lose, and stuff written by devs too clueless to know any better.

So no problem. You'd just have to write all your own apps.

 

[Seoras]

Sincere question. If I sideload an iOS app from my phone or iPad, which I already paid for, is it still piracy?

Yes. You don't own the app. You license it. That's the thing people constantly forget.
Same with MacOS or iOS.
You bought the hardware and part of that cost was the licensing to use the OS including several years of free software updates.
Have people forgotten that Microsoft Windows was once a product on a CD that you bought in a PC store?
Linux muddied the waters by being free and open source. Feel free to use it an do as you like there.
Software costs money to develop and maintain.
If it gets treated like music is/was, and freely shared and pirated, then developers stop working on it as they need to earn a living somehow, somewhere else.

Oh, one more point. WHERE did you get that copy of that App you "already paid for"?
How can you trust the source and that it doesn't contain a trojan?
You can't. I'd caution anyone thinking that its ok to sideload to think carefully before they do so.

 

[4jasontv]

Not every person is the same. I treat people as individuals. When one wrongs me, that doesn't mean everyone else should be held accountable.

Your stance is very lopsided. You speak ill of developers and OS bugs etc. and yet, you continue to engage in the very activity you continue to call out in this thread. Your post might have more substance if you were consistent in your position, in my opinion.

I don't know why you feel I am inconsistent in my position. I feel like I am been clear the entire time. Enough bad eggs ruined it for everyone. It doesn't matter if you are a 'good developer' the trust was broken and the industry has to renew it.

 

[jonblatho]

Developers shouldn't rely on Apple or anther company if they want to make money. Isn't that the justification consumers are told? If you don't like it don't use it? Not everyone needs to make software, and no one who makes software should be making money off software 5 years after release.

Building your business on someone else’s turf holds inherent risks, but eliminating that isn’t currently feasible. And well, I don’t know what other option you have than to accept that software can’t (and in many cases shouldn’t) be maintained perpetually. A software utility can work just fine and offer utility after 5+ years with minimal/no work, and if that’s the case, what’s the justification then for cutting off someone’s source of income? Should they just upload a new build with identical code every month to keep it “fresh” in your mind?

 

[4jasontv]

No problem.

However if that were true, 90% of the software you use wouldn't exist (much of it the better apps). Why? Because close to zero software works as expected. Even those ivory tower professors teaching how to write provably correct software often find that their proof's don't function as expected. Just look at all the severe security exploits that every major company has been trying to fix over the past many years. Better developers are more aware of this than the ones unsuited for the career. No small developer could afford the liability insurance, as only 2 years profit wouldn't come close to paying for it, much less the developers rent, and you'd end up with no software, except maybe the free open source stuff on GitHub, written by college students with nothing to lose, and stuff written by devs too clueless to know any better.

So no problem. You'd just have to write all your own apps.

A developer could do a lot of work for free, because they enjoy it, and then when the product is ready to launch commercialize it. They could renegotiate with with their employer to have access to any code they write while working for them. They could use code written by the community and spend their time fixing bugs instead of reinventing the wheel. There would be less apps, sure, but that's a good thing.

 

[4jasontv]

Building your business on someone else’s turf holds inherent risks, but eliminating that isn’t currently feasible. And well, I don’t know what other option you have than to accept that software can’t (and in many cases shouldn’t) be maintained perpetually. A software utility can work just fine and offer utility after 5+ years with minimal/no work, and if that’s the case, what’s the justification then for cutting off someone’s source of income? Should they just upload a new build with identical code every month to keep it “fresh” in your mind?

No. They should make something new. Like everyone else on the planet. And yes, this should also apply to music, books, and movies as well. We should not have people living off the royalties of 40 year old 3 minute jingle.

 

[NT1440]

No. They should make something new. Like everyone else on the planet. And yes, this should also apply to music, books, and movies as well. We should not have people living off the royalties of 40 year old 3 minute jingle.

Mickey Mouse would like a word 😉

 

[4743913]

Oh, one more point. WHERE did you get that copy of that App you "already paid for"?
How can you trust the source and that it doesn't contain a trojan?
You can't. I'd caution anyone thinking that its ok to sideload to think carefully before they do so.

You should do a little research before you start calling people pirates.. EVERY app I sideloaded was purchased by me. as for WHERE I found it, my computer. All of my .ipa files are backed up on MY hard drive, as insurance against some dev pulling his app out of the appstore or ruining it with an update. I think you are a little confused and using words you may not understand.

 

[Seoras]

You should do a little research before you start calling people pirates.. EVERY app I sideloaded was purchased by me. as for WHERE I found it, my computer. All of my .ipa files are backed up on MY hard drive, as insurance against some dev pulling his app out of the appstore or ruining it with an update. I think you are a little confused and using words you may not understand.

Touched a nerve did I?
Your hard drive mate, my software.
Part of your licensing agreement, that you agreed to, doesn't allow you such freedoms with my property.

 

[4743913]

Touched a nerve did I?
Your hard drive mate, my software.
Part of your licensing agreement, that you agreed to, doesn't allow you such freedoms with my property.

not really. I am more amused that a developer does not know what sideloading is..

which app do you develop?

 

[The Phazer]

Hmm... so, if I buy a music CD, I shouldn't have the right to transfer it to a computer, stream it over my home network, record it onto a USB stick that I play in my car, etc.?

You literally don't in many countries. It's a civil tort to do so. Bypassing DRM to do so can be a criminal offense in some circumstances.

 

[chrono1081]

This is a good thing. I don’t want my apps running on something I hadn’t intended it too. Depending on the nature of the app it could potentially land a developer in hot water especially if any kind of licensing is involved.

 

[darngooddesign]

Oh, one more point. WHERE did you get that copy of that App you "already paid for"?
How can you trust the source and that it doesn't contain a trojan?
You can't. I'd caution anyone thinking that its ok to sideload to think carefully before they do so.

I thought people were copying apps from their phones and loading them on their computers.

In that scenario I bought the app from the App Store and Im reasonably sure its free of malware.

 

[4jasontv]

Touched a nerve did I?
Your hard drive mate, my software.
Part of your licensing agreement, that you agreed to, doesn't allow you such freedoms with my property.

You shouldn’t sell your software if you don’t want people to use it. You have no right to tell them how to use once you sold it. And yes, you sold it, even if you want to say you licensed it.

 

[mastercheif91]

You shouldn’t sell your software if you don’t want people to use it. You have no right to tell them how to use once you sold it. And yes, you sold it, even if you want to say you licensed it.

Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

I don’t know if your goal is to chew up large portions of your day by arguing with people or actually changing peoples opinions... but if it’s the latter I highly recommend you stop presenting your opinions as absolute fact.

“You have no right to tell them how to use once it you sold it” is a factually incorrect statement.

“You shouldn’t be able to tell users how to use it once you sold it” is a defensible position that invites others to have to defend the opposing viewpoint and leads to interesting discussion.

 

[4jasontv]

Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

I don’t know if your goal is to chew up large portions of your day by arguing with people or actually changing peoples opinions... but if it’s the latter I highly recommend you stop presenting your opinions as absolute fact.

“You have no right to tell them how to use once it you sold it” is a factually incorrect statement.

“You shouldn’t be able to tell users how to use it once you sold it” is a defensible position that invites others to have to defend the opposing viewpoint and leads to interesting discussion.

Good luck taking someone's grandmother to court because they used your app, which you no longer update, that they paid for, on their laptop, because they needed a bigger screen and had trouble learning a different app. The average American will will really see how you own their software and not them.

I would love to see this idea tested with a real jury.

Right back at you. Just because you say you only licensed it doesn't make it true.

In case you missed it this entire story is a discussion of what should be. People want to run their apps on their laptop. Apps they paid for. Most people aren't asking developers to make new desktop grade apps, and are willing to deal with suboptimal UX to get the app - again that they paid for - on the hardware they paid for.

 

[mastercheif91]

Good luck taking someone's grandmother to court because they used your app, which you no longer update, that they paid for, on their laptop, because they needed a bigger screen and had trouble learning a different app. The average American will will really see how you own their software and not them.

I would love to see this idea tested with a real jury.

Right back at you. Just because you say you only licensed it doesn't make it true.

So you’re saying that Apple’s lawyers are writing unenforceable contracts? I would think that the most valuable company on the planet would have better legal representation than that...

Or maybe license agreements are actually binding contracts that can and are enforced all of the time: https://www.beankinney.com/publicat...our-Companys-Software-License-Agreements.html

Your example about grandma is a strawman, it’s highly unlikely anybody is suing individuals over benign unauthorized iOS app on macOS usage. What’s going to happen is that Apple is going to put up barriers to make it more difficult/impossible to do so to prevent the issue from happening in the first place.

And if it’s discovered that there’s a organization/person out there that’s working on cracking Apple’s defenses against this then they’ll threaten legal action.

 

[4jasontv]

So you’re saying that Apple’s lawyers are writing unenforceable contracts? I would think that the most valuable company on the planet would have better legal representation than that...

Or maybe license agreements are actually binding contracts that can and are enforced all of the time: https://www.beankinney.com/publicat...our-Companys-Software-License-Agreements.html

Your example about grandma is a strawman, it’s highly unlikely anybody is suing individuals over benign unauthorized iOS app on macOS usage. What’s going to happen is that Apple is going to put up barriers to make it more difficult/impossible to do so to prevent the issue from happening in the first place.

And if it’s discovered that there’s a organization/person out there that’s working on cracking Apple’s defenses against this then they’ll threaten legal action.

I'm no lawyer but that blog post doesn't seem relevant to our discussion. But you are right about Apple, which is why consumer protection laws need to be in place to ensure end users can use software they purchased in a reasonable manor which includes, but is not limited to, running it on any hardware thy choose.

Which they are already legally allowed to do.

 

[mastercheif91]

I'm no lawyer but that blog post doesn't seem relevant to our discussion. But you are right about Apple, which is why consumer protection laws need to be in place to ensure end users can use software they purchased in a reasonable manor which includes, but is not limited to, running it on any hardware thy choose.

Which they are already legally allowed to do.

You’re correct.

Legally you can do whatever you want with an .ipa app. Try to execute it on any platform you want, mail it to all of your friends for all Apple cares.

Legally, Apple is allowed to prevent you from actually doing anything useful with the .ipa file if it’s being used in a manner that falls outside the license agreement.

I haven’t read the agreement close enough to know if it covers running the application on the iOS operating system... but regardless Apple is under no legal mandate to allow you to run the application wherever you want. They have to allow usage in within the bounds of the agreement. If the license states that it’s only to be used on iOS, Apple is well within their rights to prevent usage elsewhere.

 

[svanstrom]

Yes. You don't own the app. You license it. That's the thing people constantly forget.
Same with MacOS or iOS.
You bought the hardware and part of that cost was the licensing to use the OS including several years of free software updates.
Have people forgotten that Microsoft Windows was once a product on a CD that you bought in a PC store?
Linux muddied the waters by being free and open source. Feel free to use it an do as you like there.
Software costs money to develop and maintain.
If it gets treated like music is/was, and freely shared and pirated, then developers stop working on it as they need to earn a living somehow, somewhere else.

Oh, one more point. WHERE did you get that copy of that App you "already paid for"?
How can you trust the source and that it doesn't contain a trojan?
You can't. I'd caution anyone thinking that its ok to sideload to think carefully before they do so.

The internet is built on freely available software, with people spending their evenings and weekends coding just because they love it. Some of them later on making a pretty penny by companies wanting their expertise as consultants about the software they worked on.

As far as saying that "Linux muddled the waters", that's simply just ignoring history. Even ignoring the early days of much of the progress/coding happening in academia (and therefor being very open), free and open software still goes back to the 1950s.

If anything we now for the first time have the most locked down, hardest to pirate, software platforms ever. Back in the day anyone could download (or share floppies) of cracked software, but that's just not available to the average user of like an iPhone; so developers have more control than ever.

Also, people are getting the "copies" you mentioned from the AppStore; because they are using the apps straight from their own devices.

Edit: Slight attitude adjustment of myself. 😆

 

[Tchakatak]

Good luck taking someone's grandmother to court because they used your app, which you no longer update, that they paid for, on their laptop, because they needed a bigger screen and had trouble learning a different app. The average American will will really see how you own their software and not them.

I would love to see this idea tested with a real jury.

Right back at you. Just because you say you only licensed it doesn't make it true.

In case you missed it this entire story is a discussion of what should be. People want to run their apps on their laptop. Apps they paid for. Most people aren't asking developers to make new desktop grade apps, and are willing to deal with suboptimal UX to get the app - again that they paid for - on the hardware they paid for.

It is clear now that you have no idea how creation work. What you pay for is the use of what i create from my brain, not the property of the creation itself.
Thats the same thing about music, films... etc.
When i make a short movie, and you buy it, you owns a certain right to play it, but i am NOT liable if the h265 file you downloaded does not work on your grandma’s dvd player.

You also dont own the right to redistribute it (even for free) or organize projections of it without my consent.
This idea that you owns everything you buy regardless of the TOS and can go to court every time you are not happy, is a really old American fashion... and us (the rest of the world) dont really care about that.